Read all of the comments. The usual pro and anti islam stuff. olncas I reckon you have it pinned there mate. I say let em march. Encourage them to get
as many of their supportive mates to be there. Then ....................... someone please make sure to get lots of photos of EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Then there is a great record of who is who in the zoo.They want to show their strength, they want to push the envelope, then let them and use their
toughness to know who to watch. It will make it easier if/when things go bad in the future. Like the pic of that maggot in sydney olncas

indeed, it was plain as day, generally i'll be too polite to call poeple out on that but it depends on the quality of their attempts to insult or
derail, it's funny how some folk just expect you to fold!

also, i am not pedantic enough to scan everything scrupulously for spelling errors and typos.. i spotted the propaganda mistake and frankly couldnt be
arsed, but i love spelling fairies and as anyone who is able to debate issues knows, that kind of nit picking is the preserve of those who have no
answers and know they have met their match.. oh well eh?

it was bali where that granny is on death row btw, and she has only her self to blame, importing kilo's of coke to a country regardless of death
penalty is just plain downright stupid, no sympathy here either

edit on 31-1-2013 by skalla because: gah, missed a word, spanked bums and panic all round i guess!

well maybe "they" are not the muslims who demand sharia, executions for so-called blasphemies etc etc.

"they" is term that can easily be used to just engage prejudice

I'm not allowed to refer to American Muslims as 'they' as that engages prejudice?

Can I refer to the support amongst young Muslims in the USA and Europe for suicide bombings or would that engage prejudice as well?

edit on 31-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

no thats fine by me, not that ypou need my permission, especially as you are using figues rather than just sugesting that everyone who belongs to a
particular group is of identical mind - i didnt suggest that you cannot use that term, but you have adjusted your approach and i appreciate that.

edit on 31-1-2013 by skalla because: i left the typo in, just incase someone comes back and it gets "there" goat

and re: the suicide bombings thang, off topic dude, start a new thread, but then you know that

*Christians and Jews do not get any protection in the middle east.
*They are not allowed to practice their own religion freely.
*They have to pay additional taxes aka Jizya.
*Our daughter's are being forcibly raped and converted to Islam everyday in Islamic countries.

So? I thought America was better than being hostile to legitimate citizens just because they follow a faith that treats people poorly elsewhere.
They're not guilty of anything simply by association.

I suppose the civilians who get caught up in raids in Pakistan don't get any protection from American drones either.

Demanding rights is one thing, to use the rules of the system to progress your own agenda and force others to follow you, is not what it's there for.
Freedom of speech and religion is fine, but some Muslims want to use those rights to force "God" out and "Allah" in. They are certainly not known
for religious tolerance.

Demanding rights is one thing, to use the rules of the system to progress your own agenda and force others to follow you, is not what it's there for.
Freedom of speech and religion is fine, but some Muslims want to use those rights to force "God" out and "Allah" in. They are certainly not known for
religious tolerance.

indeed, some muslims do, as do some people of other faiths.

it's certainly true that in the uk, and so it would seem in the us too, that some muslims (in my view more recent immigrants or those with the zeal of
a recent convert) have real trouble understanding a tolerant society such as the uk, or the freedom of speech of the us.
however i feel this is an issue that people need to work on rather than simply condemn and draw up battle lines over and stereotype a minority.
if we live in nations that allow, and are built on immigration (obviously the us and uk fall into this category) then i think that we have to take it
on the chin and find an intelligent way of enduring it, working with it and enabling positive change... role modelling is a good start, sadly i feel
that there is not enough of that, and too much in the way of knee jerk tit for tat reaction without forethought as to where this leads.

I suppose the civilians who got killed in 9/11,26/11 and other Islamic terrorist attacks didn't get any protection from Muslim's either.

Indeed they didn't.

However, the mistake you're making here is seeing 'Muslim' as some homogenic mass which is as ridiculous as seeing 'Christianity' as just one
thing.

The people who commit terrorism are Extremists... no more connected to the ordinary man in the Pakistani street than - say - Timothy McVeigh was to
you. In the same way small numbers of people sympathised with McVeigh, a small amount of people symathise with the extremists.

The ordinary man might disapprove of 'Western decadence' that he's taught is contrary to his religion, but it's a disapproval that extends only to
not letting that decadance become something in his or his family's life. The ordinary man just wants to go to work, get paid, have dinner and live
normally just like his Western counterpart.

Anyhow, I appreciate you probably won't agree with this, but the fact that many people seem to think Muslim and Extremist are completely
interchangeable terms is probably the reason a million Muslims want to march on Washington.

It's not like you are personally responsible for drone strikes that kill civilians, but a Pakistani or whatever thinking all Americans are
personally responsible is the same and equally irrational as instantly linking Muslims and Extremists.

Anyhow, so what? What does that wiki page tell you? Some Muslims have engaged in terrorism. I'm sure there's a similar page for lots of religions /
movements / political parties. Nelson Mandela engaged in terrorism, for instance.

Explain to me how that wiki page makes anyone on that proposed march in DC an extremist... tell me why their rights as American citizens are worth
less than yours because people of the same religion did bad stuff elsewhere.

is it possible that the propoganda and programming that you have been subjected is playing on some of your prejudices or fears and producing this
internal struggle?

Not likely. It is more likely the historical facts surrounding the invention, rise, and spread of Islam. By their own definition, muslims cannot be
citizens of the nations in which they reside. It is anathema to the teachings of their prophet Mohammed and contradictory to their system of social
control called Sharia. Muslims residing on American soil cannot honestly uphold or defend the Constitution or my Bill of Rights. All they can do is
employ deception by paying lip service to our culture, our values, and our laws while they continuously seek ways to move the Jihad forward.

Jihad is a mechanical process not a response. Jihad is the process by which muslims propagate their Islamic faith, their Sharia Law, and their
questionable culture. Despite what the muslims say, Jihad is not a response to any perceived slights they have suffered at the hands of non-muslims.
Jihad is not an internal struggle of the mind. Jihad is a process by which Islamic culture is spread.

This "Million Muslim March" is Jihad. It is a painfully obvious attempt to use the American culture, American values, and American laws as a cloak
behind which the Jihad can be advanced. These muslims do not seek to participate in American culture, they seek to destroy it through the process of
Jihad and then to replace it with Islamic culture and Sharia Law.

The muslims have used the process of Jihad to spread their culture, religion, and laws to great success for 1,400 years. From the Arabian Peninsula,
to Byzantium, to Persia, to Northern Africa, to western China, to India, to Russia, Great Britian, America, Sweden, to the Philippines, to Malaysia.
The process is exactly the same. Where there are muslims, there is eventually violent Jihad.

Muslims in America seek the exact same thing that muslims across planet Earth seek; the ascendance of Islam and Sharia across all the planet. To think
otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Muslims do not engage in terrorism. Muslims employ the mechanical process of Jihad in an effort to spread their culture, religion, and laws. Do not
mistake terrorism for Jihad or you will fall into a subtle trap that will eventually make you the terrorist and make the jihadis the "victims" of
your "terrorism".

There is no such thing as a muslim terrorist. There are only muslims engaged in Jihad. Muslims do not see Jihad as terror in the same manner a
Westerner does. Jihad is the obligation of all muslims; from the subtle lie told to your face by a smiling muslim to the slaughter of non-muslim
children in Beslan. It is all Jihad, Holy War, in the way of Mohammed and in celebration of their deity, the Allah.

Jihad is not terror. Jihad is the mechanical process, from lies to open violence, by which muslims spread their faith, their culture, and their laws.

I don't want you to believe anything. I just want you to apply some critical thinking to why you think all Muslims are bad because some of them
committed terrorism.

Anyhow, I'm British (and an atheist for what it's worth), and this wiki article here tells me that an American Christian Sect calling themselves
'The Army of God' (

) engaged in terrorism related to abortion and gay issues. So, by Shiva's logic, should I be wary of Christians?
Americans? Both?

Doesn't make sense does it? I should be wary of Extremists. They all kill for spurious reasons and try to 'convert' people to their way of thinking
by terrorising them.

I don't recall saying Islamic violence didn't exist. I don't recall saying it wasn't a problem within certain sections of their faith. I do,
however, recall suggesting that having suspicions about American Muslims looking to protect their First Amendment rights on the basis that other
Muslims on the other side of the planet do bad things is utterly, utterly retarded.

I don't agree with Mike's well written response about Jihad either, as it is taking Islam in an extraordinarily literal way. It is true that
'Jihad' has been used to spread Islam in the past, but it's actually an interpretation that has fallen out of favour. The gap between Westernised
Islam and the very hardline stuff you find in Afghanistan/Iran etc is widening - out of necessity if nothing else.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.